**A rude but understandable film.**
I just saw this film, and honestly I was hoping for a slightly different comedy, with a more elaborate, more conventional structure and not based so much on endless dialogues. It is, however, an independent film, made a little outside of what traditional circuits and big studios are, and the budget is limited. If we consider all this, I think we can understand the film better.
The film basically accompanies a day in the life of two commercial employees who hate their jobs but need them, like any mortal. They work closely together and are friends, but the day promises not to be easy for either of them. The film is based on jokes of a very rude nature, sometimes also on the inelegant manners of the characters. There are a lot of allusions to pop culture throughout the movie as well, and I didn't always get that. It's not the kind of humor I really enjoy, though the film has its moments. Perhaps this style of humor works better with young people and teenagers than with someone more adult...
The cast features a number of actors that I don't really know. Brian O'Halloran and Jeff Anderson had their most relevant work in this film, from what I've seen. The film is quite restrained in terms of costumes and scenery, and I believe that real stores were used for the production. What can be considered a weakness, the low budget, was to some extent an advantage, taking into account the type of film they preferred to make here. The cinematography is very good and well used, and is perhaps the film's most artistic feature.

Quite a controversial movie, I would say, yet the very one from all by Kevin Smith I actually like. Not for those below-the-belt jokes but this lowlife vibe most of us lost on the halfway to adult life. Now I find myself lying with my laptop on a couch, like I always do after a long day at work, filling out the form 8862 and recalling the times like that. The times when the bare minimum seemed to be a freedom and the only thing one needs to be satisfied with their life.

Over the years, I have really enjoyed Smith's comic book writing, but this is the only film so far I have seen him direct. My cinephilic friends tend to dismiss his recent works, but this was very enjoyable. I like the influence he has had on independent cinema. 1994 certainly proved to be an important year for it, with the smash successes that independent studios had with 'Clerks' and 'Pulp Fiction'. I hope he sticks to directing films that he himself writes. I have the feeling he wants to expand his horizons but isn't quite sure how to go about it without alienating his huge fanbase. I have great confidence in him, and feel that if he puts his heart into it, he can be a great filmmaker, instead of a good one. I think for him to do so, he could do himself a great service and read a few less comic books and watch a lot more movies, particularly by the Hollywood greats from the Golden Age, such as Sir Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks, Raoul Walsh and John Ford. It would be quite exciting to see what he comes up with, once his creative juices are recharged.

Perfection.
I think I will just come right out and say it from the off, this is a masterpiece, a truly spell binding, mesmerising tour de force that seeps class from every pore. I have often found myself cringing and turning my back on those who use in film debate the tired old defence of "it's not for everyone", but here I find I have no choice because this picture is purely for those enamoured with poetic beauty and precision film making at its highest. Those in search of an all action gun toting western need not apply, in fact those merely after popcorn fodder to while away an evening viewing should steer well clear. Andrew Dominik's second directorial effort is a character and dialogue driven piece of work, its thematic heart swirling with intelligence and elegiac beauty.
The story centrers around the final days of notorious outlaw Jesse James, and how one of his young disciples came to murder him on April 3rd 1882. Using Ron Hansen's novel as its source, it also fills in the gaps as to what became of the murderer Robert Ford as regards the subsequent aftermath of killing the infamous Jesse James. The film is dealing with issues all to prevalent in modern day society, we are witnessing perhaps the first instance of celebrity status gone berserker, we see how the press glamorise the nasty piece of work that was Jesse James, turning him into some sort of quintessential noble outlaw. We observe a stalking menace yearning to be like his hero, a young and impressionable fellow who's hurtling towards infamy completely oblivious of the pitfalls and irony of it all.
Structually the film is perfect, and to me the film defines the old saying of art on the silver screen. The performances of the lead actors are incredible, Brad Pitt gives a career high as Jesse James, all teetering villainy yet perfectly befitting the prince charming outlaw persona so gleefully built up by the press. Sam Rockwell is Charley Ford, and here he proves that movie big wigs really need to start giving the guy some more dramatic roles to get his teeth in to. Yet as good as Pitt & Rockwell are, both men are left trailing in the wake of Casey Affleck's performance as Robert Ford, childish emotion fused with flecks of dark undercurrents as Affleck layers a perfect show. How the academy chose to ignore this performance should be seen as an act of treason against American cinema.
Few films have left me open mouthed in admiration at the quality on show, but shot after shot, frame after frame, this really is as gorgeous as it comes. Roger Deakins photography sublimely pleasing the eyes at every edit, be it lush rolling hills cloaked in snow, or shadowy figures appearing like ghosts from locomotive smoke, with Deakins firmly cementing his reputation as a master of his craft. The score from Nick Cave & Warren Ellis perfectly captures the ambiance and texture of the piece, with Cave himself bagging a cameo performance as a bar room busker. It's incredible to think that this is only director Andrew Dominik's second feature film, following on from the hugely enjoyable Chopper in 2000, it is now evident that New Zealand can lay claim to producing a talent that if all goes to plan, will go on to become a director to rank up with the best of them.
As it is, and just right now, The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford should be filed along side Vertigo as a member of that club that only admits the greatest American films of all time, and that be even if it was directed by a Kiwi, wink wink America.
Masterpiece. 10/10

A great cast and amusing humour, but man does it take itself too seriously.
I think I can just about consider 'Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates' as a good film. The lead stars do respectable jobs and most of the comedy is funny, the fact that it tries to be heartfelt on too many occasions almost derails my feelings towards it though.
Zac Efron (Dave), Adam DeVine (Mike), Anna Kendrick (Alice) and Aubrey Plaza (Tatiana) all connect very well together, the chemistry in their respective cliques isn't always there but for the comical stuff they work.
Efron and Plaza would be my picks from the onscreen talent, especially Plaza who commits to the role nicely; despite an iffy accent. Elsewhere you have Sam Richardson (Eric), Lavell Crawford (Keith) and Stephen Root (Burt) appearing, they have relatively minor roles though it's cool to see them involved.
It's the attempted heartwarming story that lets this down, I guess it does leave with a positive message but none of it comes across in the film itself - I didn't connect with any of the characters on a proper level, Jake Szymanski & Co. should've just went for the 100% pure comedy. Being earnest is OK but you simply have to make it click, it doesn't here.
Thankfully, the satisfactory if sometimes hit-and-miss humour just about rescues this from soppy romcom territory.

**Sorry Mike and Dave, it's an Alice and Tatiana's free vacay.**
I should be honest that I had some good laughs, but not the overall film was impressive. For me it was a chick film, and Anna Kedrick and Aubrey Plaza are the lead actors. I really loved their parts and that's the reason I had no issue watching it, but like usual Zac Efron ruined it. I won't blame him completely, but he and Adam Devine's roles did not deliver as what the title expresses. I mean they get their wedding date, but the title should have been 'Alice and Tatiana Goes for a Free Vacay' or something like that.
It was like a 'Brideamaid' kind of film, but there are too many adult jokes. The story was sort of based on the real, and that's just a joke to begin the narration. The advertisement was real, but the remaining story was fictional. From there, how the plot developed was totally makes no sense, but it does not matter because it is a comedy. Especially the initial parts, but later on, it gets better, only the comedy wise. In some way it was not bad, and not good either to recommend to others. So it is nothing more than a decent timepass film, but some people might find it most annoying.
_6/10_

Director Jake Szymanski’s fictitious siblings Mike and Dave need more than wedding dates in this baseless and brainless raunchy comedy. For starters, it needs to wipe off its monotonous mediocrity as a lame laugher laced with empty-headed vulgarity and cheap chuckles straining for manufactured amusement. The genre regarding raunchy comedies had always had that miss-or-hit gamble about its cockeyed presentation. For the tedious and tepid **Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates** it is safe to say that it will not be on the Mount Rushmore of classic naughty farces in the tradition of _Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Porky’s_ or the _American Pie_ film franchise anytime soon.
Banally sluggish and lazily crass, **Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates** tries desperately to register its juvenile high-wire impishness as inspired lunacy but the profane randomness of Szymanski’s (along with screenwriters Andrew Jay Coleman and Brendan O’Brien) jiggle-and-giggle romp is about as riotous and inspired as a drippy diaper. Thankfully **Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates** does not entirely sink to the forgettable levels yet of say the earlier released fetid raunchfest Dirty Grandpa (although both films features principal players Zac Efron and Aubrey Plaza in the cast) but that still is not saying much for its feeble defense.
The problem with most modern youth-oriented sex farces is that ready-made mentality of delivering shock value debauchery that have no sense of coherence or irreverent purpose to support the so-called funny, bouncy rhythms of the movie is sloppily realized. Instead, filmmakers focus on promoting outrageous and recycled ribaldry without arming the unconventional story with something more serviceable and solid. Essentially Szymanski tosses the stilted zaniness against the wall hoping that anything sticks as proposed hilarity.
The Stangle Brothers in Mike (Adam Devine) and Dave (Zac Efron) is a couple of mischievous misfits that attract mayhem whenever possible. They revel in the sordid good times and are proven to be a handful for their exasperated parents Burt and Rosie (Stephen Root and Stephanie Faracy). The only ray of hope concerning Burt’s and Rosie’s success regarding offspring comes in the package of daughter Jeannie (Sugar Lyn Beard). Jeannie is preparing for her upcoming wedding and appears to have something concrete going on in her life more so than her “party-hearty” bone-headed brothers.
Anyhow, Mike and Dave are subjected to the ultimatum set by their frustrated parents to “straighten up” and grab some semblance of maturity. The source for getting this dim-witted duo to shape up involves their baby sister’s Hawaiian-based wedding. If Mike and Dave were to attend Jeannie’s exotic ceremony they must grab respectable dates otherwise reject the notion of becoming part of their sister’s life-changing, special occasion. One of the puzzling aspects of this toothless plot is to ponder why these sibling screw-ups would seriously care to change their wayward ways by a parental threat of not showing up at their precious sister’s island-based nuptials? Oh please…
In any event, Mike and Dave get busy trying to fish for formidable escorts but this proves futile until an Internet ad seeking “nice girls” for a Hawaiian getaway draws considerable attention as loads of women take notice. As the many female applicants react to Mike’s and Dave’s sensational date to the scenic 50th state for some gorgeous sun and fun there are two tarts in particular that pop out of nowhere in Alice and Tatiana (Anna Kendrick from “Pitch Perfect” and Aubrey Plaza from the aforementioned “Dirty Grandpa”).
Although they are stimulating as eye-candy for the brothers to drag to Hawaii both Alice and Tatiana fail the required prerequisite as being goodie two-shoes companions for Mike and Dave. In fact, Alice and Tatiana are quite the opposite but must hide their true nature as bombastic bimbos with acid tongues if they are to take advantage of the golden opportunity to travel to picturesque Hawaii. Predictably, the devious dates fall into their genuine selves as rambunctious chicks…something that Mike and Dave must deal with concerning this clumsy deception by the riff raffish Alice and Tatiana.
No doubt that **Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates** intended to be some throwaway chuckle-minded showcase searching for its titillating temperature of off-kilter jocularity. Sadly, this moronic movie is reduced to going through the run-of-the-mill tactics of broad jokes falling flat, lightweight sight gags, silly-minded pratfalls and attractive profanity-spewing undesirables that are somehow supposed to tickle our collective, indiscriminate funnybones. Consequently, everything in this callous concoction of a comedy feels relentlessly artificial, overwrought and forced.
Sure, the off-the-wall characterizations in the main foursome of the Stangle sibs and their tag-along traveling trophies are expected to be a fine hot-mess. Nevertheless, the whole production unintentionally strives to be that same hot-mess but for totally different reasons. Efron, a veteran of a string of painful cockeyed comedies that some of his most ardent female fans might have trouble recalling, channels his familiar wild pretty boy persona from Neighbors…one of the very few flicks worth mentioning on Efron’s flaccid filmography. Devine’s Mike comes off as achingly overbearing as the brother with the showy awkwardness to match the synthetic obnoxiousness. Kendrick’s Alice does not seem remotely convincing as the phony “decent date for hire”. At least Plaza’s Tatiana shows some modicum of plausibility as the bad girl grounded in rawness.
It is unfortunate that **Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates** could not have added anything fresh or subversive to the trivial table with the noxious material and other regurgitated clichés that bombard these notoriously flimsy R-rated spectacles with a pseudo-provocative pulse. It is safe to say that watching the eye-rolling shenanigans of Mike and Dave Spangle on the big screen is enough to call this whole exhausting affair beyond a dating disaster.
**Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates (2016)**
20th Century Fox
1 hr. 38 mins.
Starring: Zac Efron, Adam Devine, Anna Kendrick, Aubrey Plaza,Stephen Root, Stephanie Faracy, Sugar Lyn Beard
Directed by: Jake Szymanski
MPPA Rating: R
Genre: Comedy
Critic’s rating: * ½ stars (out of 4 stars)
Frank Ochieng © 2016

I kind of feel that Anderson lends himself to a film like this. He uses a lot of extreme wide angles and if you ever smoked a little dope in college the world looks a little like when you mount that 18mm on your SLR. His choice of lenses lends itself to telling the story of a guy like Doc without going over the top ala Fear and Loathing and making it a little too blatantly FX.
The humor works in best possible dry as a martini kind of way, and it's played straight like comedy should be.
But really, the premise sold me. Take a hard boiled film noir kind of mystery and replace Sam Spade with the perpetual stoner and then watch him try to solve a mystery.
It's incoherent enough to make you believe that Doc is just a little too rocked to function properly most of the time, which is reflected in his effectiveness and decision making skills. He's smart enough to not bumble his way through it, but has gotten off the magic school bus enough to do his best possible work.
And it makes the film do that one singular thing that all movies are required to do in order to be called a success... it entertains.
And honestly it's a delight to watch. The acting was great, the director was the best possible person to take on the adaptation, and the lighting walked that fine line between naturalistic and cinematic.
I'd call it a beautiful film, but it's hard to call a movie about drugs beautiful without sounding utterly pretentious... so, I'll settle with the highest praise a movie can get... it's entertaining and a pleasure to watch.

'Inherent Vice' is the next feature film from Paul Thomas Anderson and you can tell. It boasts a great soundtrack, brilliant acting and a very convoluted story as it tells the story of a private detective (Phoenix) as he investigates into the disappearance of a former girlfriend.
The screenplay is very confusing. It is hard to follow and purposely so as it introduces many characters and multiple stories but I have heard that this aspect of the screenplay is very true to the original source material. All I could do was admit that the film was too bewildering and to enjoy the many jokes and humorous situations.
Joaquin Phoenix is tremendous as the main character Larry "Doc" Sportello. He is complimented with a great supporting cast such as Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro.
Overall, 'Inherent Vice' is not a typical popcorn flick and I was very confused by the overwhelming plot.
★★★½

Good watch, probably won't watch again, and can recommend if you're just looking for another version of "The Jungle Book".
I will say they definitely had the budget for a decent production value, and while Mowgli is almost the only person in the movie, I can definitely say that Rohan Chand is a great child actor, and everyone should be watching him going forward.
Someone was upset that Disney had "The Jungle Book" made as a family friendly, charming movie, and when Netflix was giving away jobs, he jumped in and said, "It's time for the Nolan treatment!" and made a grittier more nuanced than intuitive version.
This version goes much too far into the politics of the Jungle, and does some really strange re-casts of the characters. Baloo is almost a pirate captain, or an old military commander (because you remember how when the English conquered India, the Indian fought back on bear calvary, right?), and Louie is replaced with a friendly Kaa (still in charge of "the monkey people"), and they specifically go into who is in the pack and who isn't and what laws are being broken. They even added a new character just to put them in the FRIDGE: I really thought we were done with that trope (it's probably a cliche now).
The action is almost all flippant, it doesn't amount to much and it's all shot a little funny to me. They also added a Gaston / Clayton character as an antagonist so there are alleged twists on how both must be handled.
The dialogue is mostly fine, but this is LONG, about 1 hr 45 mins, but feels like 2 hrs 30 min. The story arcs feel more like a run on sentence: looking back I can identify an establishing Act, a climatic Act, and something in the middle that must have been the 2nd act, where all the strife happens, but the weight definitely isn't equal amongst the 3. There is also no graduating: the fable aspect is long gone, there is not "leveling", Mowgli is the same punk kid as when the movie started, he's just stupid enough to challenge a tiger in open terrain (yes, there's more to that, but it wouldn't matter).
I even like the movie, but this version takes out what little I found special from the Disney versions and replaces it with Batman levels of inner conflict over his identity.

Two live-action _Jungle Book_ adaptations in as many (and a half) years. The general consensus seems to be that the Disney version is great, and this one is not. Personally, I'm not huge on either of them. But I can see strength in the argument that the other one is at least **better**.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

> “Do you know how much I love you? If you could take all the words in the language, it still wouldn't describe how much I love you. And if you could gather all those words together, it still wouldn't describe what I feel for you. What I feel for you is everything. I love you more than everything.”
\- David Sheff
Beautiful Boy is a true, heart wrenching story of how a father attempts to care for his drug-addicted son. Told mostly, although not exclusively, from the perspective of David, the father, it shows how addiction can tear apart a family and how David Sheff dealt with it. This movie will make you cry and this movie will make you think, it's made incredibly well and is probably one of the best movies I've ever seen that everyone should watch.

_**Earnest and heartfelt, but narratively awkward, and emotionally unengaging**_
> _They say suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. The problem with being human isn't really so temporary._
- Nic Sheff; _Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines_ (2008)
> _Anyone who has lived through it, or those who are now living through it, knows that caring about an addict is as complex and fraught and debilitating as addiction itself._
- David Sheff; _Beautiful Boy: A Father's Journey Through His Son's Addiction_ (2008)
Based on the memoirs _Beautiful Boy: A Father's Journey Th__rough His Son's Addiction_ by David Sheff and _Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines_ by Nic Sheff, written for the screen by Luke Davies (_Life_; _Lion_) and Felix van Groeningen (_The Broken Circle Breakdown_), and directed by van Groeningen in his English language debut, _Beautiful Boy_ is a film about the horrors of addiction, told from the perspective of both an addict and his father. Focusing primarily on David's attempts to understand and fight against his son's addiction to crystal meth, the film aims for a no frills _sans_-sentimental authenticity (Davies is himself a former heroin addict, who based _Candy: A Novel of Love and Addiction_ (1997) on his experiences; he also co-wrote the script for the 2006 film adaptation, _Candy_, directed by Neil Armfield). Serving as something of a showcase for the two lead actors (Steve Carell and Timothée Chalamet, both of whom are exceptional), there's little in the way of plot, with the film instead adopting a non-linear cyclical structure designed to mirror the repetitive nature of addiction-rehab-relapse-addiction-rehab etc. And whilst it is certainly heartfelt and respectfully told, there's little in the way of emotional engagement. The structure is also problematic insofar as because there's no real cohesive plot providing forward momentum, the highs and lows are undifferentiated, becoming repetitive. Van Groeningen also overuses flash-backs. So although the film may have an inherent degree of authenticity that's to be applauded, as drama, it isn't especially compelling, with the structure tending to work against the actors, blunting any emotional impact, and keeping the characters always at one step removed.
Living in Marin County, Nic Sheff (Chalamet) is an intelligent, popular, and kind teenager, who has a close relationship with his father, David (Carell), his stepmother Karen (Maura Tierney), and his two younger half-siblings, Jasper (Christian Convery) and Daisy (Oakley Bull). He is less close to his birthmother Vicki (Amy Ryan), who moved to LA after she and David divorced. David is a journalist for the _New York Times_, and Karen is a painter, with the family enjoying a comfortable bohemian middle-class existence. The film begins as David attends the offices of a drug counsellor and psychologist, Dr. Brown (Timothy Hutton). Explaining that Nic has become addicted to crystal meth, he wants to learn everything he can about the drug in order to best help his son. The story then cuts to a year previously. Nic has been missing for two days, and when he nonchalantly re-appears, David insists on taking him to rehab. He initially responds well, and soon requests to be transferred to a halfway-house, to which David agrees. A few days later, however, he flees the facility, and David later finds him strung-out in an alley. Taking him to hospital, Nic reveals he has been abusing not only marijuana and alcohol, but cocaine, ecstasy, and, especially, crystal meth. Back in rehab, Nic makes a full recovery, and heads to college to study as a writer, beginning a relationship with a fellow student, Julia (Stefanie Scott). However, having dinner in her house one evening, Nic finds a bottle of painkillers in the bathroom, and once more relapses, except this time he turns to heroin. With David still determined to help him overcome his demons, Karen tells David that he is neglecting his two younger children, and that Nic might be beyond a father's ability to help. Heartbroken, David agrees she is probably correct.
The most notable aspect of _Beautiful Boy_ is the structure, which is both cyclical and non-linear – the film is made up of a series of high and lows following Nic and David through relapse and recovery, whilst at the same time, there are multiple flashbacks, with scenes in the present giving characters occasion to think about moments from the past. For example, as David sits in a diner waiting for Nic to arrive, he thinks back to a much happier meal he had with his son in that same diner many years previously. This technique is used throughout the film, often flashing back to happier memories of Nic's childhood. The problem with this non-linear structure is that it's overused; there's barely a scene that doesn't have some kind of temporal cutaway. This overuse also dulls the impact of such editing, as after 45 minutes, you're just yearning for the film to stay put for a while. Sometimes the flashbacks do work, revealing something interesting, juxtaposing the past and present evocatively, or changing how we view the present, but a lot of the time, it feels like an unjustified piece of trickery, an end unto itself, insofar as there often isn't a great deal of establishing context. This leaves the viewer wondering, "how did we get from that scene to this one. Why did what happened there make David think of this?" This is pretty much the last thing you should be thinking about in a narrative of this nature, and it completely pulls you out of the film. Indeed, there are parts of the movie that so overuse the technique as to seem like a montage rather than a collection of actual scenes.
Additionally, the timeline itself becomes confused within all of this, especially in the sense of where the movie's present is supposed to be. For example, there's a scene where we see David dropping Nic off to college, and the two of them enjoy a joint. As I understood it, this scene came after Nic had owned up to his meth addiction and gotten clean, but before he had met Julia and relapsed. Which obviously makes no sense, as the scene gives the impression David has no idea that Nic has been using drugs, surprised he even knows how to smoke a joint. So is his trip to college much earlier in the narrative? But if so, when, as it doesn't seem to fit anywhere else in the timeline? Again, these are not the kinds of things you should be concentrating on when watching what is supposed to be an emotive story, but more often than not, the editing foregrounds itself (the film is cut by van Groeningen's regular editor, Nico Leunen), pulling you out of the narrative.
As regards the repetitive nature of the story, I understand what van Groeningen was going for – it is supposed to mirror the back and forth nature of addiction ("_relapse is part of rehab_" as David is told), a two steps forward, one step back staccato motion. However, the film falls into a pattern of Nic showing up looking a little more dishevelled than he did before, followed by David doing everything he can to help, followed by his failure to get through to Nic, followed by Nic disappearing, followed by Nic showing up looking a little more dishevelled than he did before, etc. And whilst this may lend itself to a certain authenticity, it doesn't make for very effective drama. In any case, other filmmakers have found ways to depict the repetitive nature of addiction without compromising the story, not the least of whom would be Darren Aronofsky in _Requiem for a Dream_ (2000), who constantly uses a quick montage of the characters doing drugs to suggest the habitual nature of addiction.
Obviously enough, the main theme of the film is addiction, and in this sense, it gets a lot right. For example, in his journal, Nic outlines the vicious-circle that addicts fall into; he needs drugs so he does things of which he's ashamed to get money with which to buy them, but then because he feels so guilty about what he's done, he needs more drugs to cover the shame, so he does things of which he's ashamed to get money with which to buy them, and so on. He's also especially clear when describing the fact that after you've done crystal meth a few times, you don't get the same high from it, and so the addiction becomes all about attempting to recreate that first high (which Nic describes as making a black-and-white world appear in Technicolour).
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the movie is that Nic is a prosperous and intelligent middle-class young man with a strong support system. He is a child of divorce, yes, but he has a good relationship with both of his parents. This is a far cry from the typical addict we see in film and TV, who are usually at the extreme ends of the monetary spectrum, either poverty-stricken and destitute (such as, say, Bubbles (Andre Royo) in _The Wire_) or extremely wealthy and high-functioning (such as Caspar (Geoffrey Rush) in _Candy_). Additionally, as he explains himself, he first tried drugs to see what they were like, and when he liked how they made him feel, he kept on doing them. As he says at one point, the first time he did hard drugs was the best feeling he'd ever had. During the aforementioned scene where Nic and David share a joint, Nic summates this, telling David that marijuana "_takes the edge off the stupid all day stuff_". There was no precipitating event, no great emotional trauma which made him turn to narcotics; his addiction is just something that happened, a disease to which anyone could succumb
The other main theme is that of the father-son relationship, and this too is well-presented. With both actors giving superb performances, one really sees the bond between the two, and how much Nic's addiction is destroying both of them. In this sense, the real tragedy of Nic's situation isn't the rehabs and relapses, it's seeing him drift further and further away from a man who would literally die to protect him. Given the source material, one does wonder a little if the relationship is idealised somewhat, but irrespective of that, Carell and Chalamet give a masterclass in acting, and I was genuinely shocked neither of them was nominated at the 2019 Oscars.
With lesser performances, the film would crumble under the weight of van Groeningen's heavy-handed direction. Thankfully the performances are strong enough that the style distracts rather than undermines. That said, the benefit of the non-linear storytelling is that it allows Chalamet and Carell to really drive home how much their relationship changes, with their playful and happy earlier scenes contrasting heart-breakingly with the fraught and destructive times of later years. Chalamet's is the more physical of the two performances, conveying so much via his body language. It's a world apart from his work in Luca Guadagnino's _Call Me by Your Name_, Elijah Bynum's _Hot Summer Nights_, or Greta Grewig's _Lady Bird_ (all 2017), as he completely inhabits the character, alternating between playing Nic as a sweet, loving, almost immature teenager, and a stressed addict, old before his years, and capable of anything to get money for his next hit. When he is rehabbing, there's a regret and humility in his performance that is nowhere to be seen when he relapses, as he becomes more manic and unpredictable, and much less self-aware.
Carell, for his part, does most of his best work with his eyes, conveying the sadness and desperation he feels. His helplessness is written across his face, conveying how little he can actually do for his son. He initially approaches the problem in a logical manner (he does methodical pseudo-journalistic research on crystal meth to better understand it, he snorts cocaine to try to put himself in Nic's shoes), before eventually realising there is no logic at play here, and tackling the subject as he would an article for the _New York Times_ is not going to work. Carell plays David as confused, haunted, and desperate, with Nic's addiction, specifically his inability to break it, having as profound a psychological effect on David as it has a physical effect on Nic.
Despite all of these positives, however, as indicated above, there are a number of problems. For one, van Groeningen chooses not to present some of the darker aspects of Nic's story. For example, he turned to prostitution at one point to fund his addiction. Additionally, as his hits from crystal meth continued to diminish over time, he started shooting it up, which is insanely dangerous. Leaving out aspects such as this gives the film a kind of sanitised feeling, as if we're looking at addiction through a gauze which the director refuses to pull back to let us see it directly. This kind of heart-breaking sordid detail would have helped the film immeasurably, especially in relation to its lack of emotional engagement.
This lack is probably the most egregious problem. A film of this nature, detailing something like this, and based on a true story, should be an emotional rollercoaster, but the audience is always removed, the emotions are seen rather than experienced, as if we're looking at the rollercoaster instead of riding it. Because the film introduces us to the characters mid-crisis, and because there's literally not a single scene that isn't either related to Nic's addiction, or a flashback from a scene related to his addiction, we never really get to know David or Nic outside this situation, with the script never really moving beyond David as "dutiful father" and Nic as "desperate son". Any sense we have of these two people comes almost entirely from the acting, and even then, although you certainly feel empathy and sympathy for them, you don't feel a huge amount else. The problem is that the plot (such as it is) never seems compelling, partly due to how narrowly focused the film is. It's also not a good sign that, for me, the most emotive part of the whole thing was hearing Nic himself reading a monologue from his book over the closing credits.
This dearth of characterisation is even more pronounced in relation to the two women, who may as well not be there. Karen has nothing to do but wander around in the background painting trees, whilst Vicki doesn't even get that much – she's a disembodied voice on the phone most of the time, and although I know she appeared in a couple of scenes, by the next day, I'd forgotten what she did in either of them. It's a real waste of two extremely talented performers.
There have been some truly great films made about addiction; Otto Preminger's _The Man With the Golden Arm_ (1955), Blake Edwards's _Days of Wine and Roses_ (1962), Jerry Schatzberg's _The Panic in Needle Park_ (1971), Gus Van Sant's _Drugstore Cowboy_ (1989), Danny Boyle's _Trainspotting_ (1996), Mike Figgis's _Leaving Las Vegas_ (1995), Scott Klalvert's _The Basketball Diaries_ (1995), Darren Aronofsky's _Requiem for a Dream_ (2000). Beautiful Boy is absolutely nowhere near anything of this calibre. In fact, it's probably more successful as a kind of instructional installation for relatives of people going through addiction than it is as a film evoking emotions. Told from the perspective of people living through this nightmare, the story is incredibly straightforward and forgettable, when it should be shocking, disturbing, and emotionally devastating. And whilst the film is definitely heartfelt, its lack of emotional engagement, its repetitiveness, its distracting structure, its lack of a plot, all serve to grate against the incredible performances.

Inspired by a father and son’s dual memoirs (Beatiful Boy and Tweak, respectively), Felix Van Groeningen’s heartfelt adaptation portrays the relationship between David (Steve Carell) and Nic Sheff (Timothée Chalamet), as both struggle through the latter’s drug addiction.
There are about a billion reasons to see this movie: 1) Basically everyone in the cast has been nominated for an Oscar (save for Maura Tierney, who has a Golden Globe and two Emmy noms); 2) Timothée Chalamet; 3) The memoirs are incredible (and not super expensive on Amazon, so you can catch up before the movie comes out); 4) It sets the scene for a quasi Office reunion between Carell and Amy Ryan (who played Holly Flax).
But perhaps the most significant — and overlooked — reason is this: director Felix Van Groeningen’s 2012 film The Broken Circle Breakdown is, in my humble opinion, one of the best movies of all time (and available to stream on Amazon, who I promise I don’t work for). Stakes are high

It's pretty much a re-make of "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" which was itself a remake, only this one isn't as good.
It's actually just "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" that has been gender swapped and, like all of the gender swapped remakes of late, the humor, the plot, the entire story is wrapped around the fact that the gender has been swapped, and done so without an actual story or humor.
It's basically a remake with women and the draw is intended to be that it has women in it this time rather than men... and that doesn't work without a story or actual jokes with punchlines and timing, jokes that divert expectations... not jokes that are revolved around a swap in characters and nothing more.
Save your time, it's just like Ghostbusters, What Men Want, Oceans 8 and all the other movies that have done the exact same thing and failed because they lacked an actual story and humor

A totally class-free remake of the var superior "Bedtime Story" (1964) that is both vulgar and crass. All it needed was a little bit of subtlety and it could have been quite a fun role-reversal caper; instead it is clumsy and cringe-makingly unsophisticated. No amount of glamorous location photography can make it any less so. I never leave the cinema half way through a film, but was sorely tempted with this nonsense.

Point by point remake of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and while I don't hold that movie in as high regards compared to others, this spit in its face with offering absolutely nothing new with the comedy falling flat at every turn and worse yet, where Michael Caine and Steve Martin were great together, Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson shared no chemistry.
Since this movie did not deviate at all from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, I found myself mostly bored and just waiting for it to end. Although I've seen worse, I was never angry or anything, just thinking what was the point?

Normally, I really like Anne Hathaway. **Especially** recently. But not only did I think The Hustle was pretty bad, even she specifically was pretty bad in it.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Competent actioner.
S.W.A.T. is neither here nor there, in that if it was made ten years earlier it would in all probability be better thought of. The problem is that there is such a long line of action movies that entertain without pushing the boat out, some, like S.W.A.T., throw a good cast list at it and hope that carries the film through, others just go over the top with the pyrotechnics and think that is job done. Abandon hope of something fresh and exhilaratingly kinetic and S.W.A.T. passes muster.
The plot of S.W.A.T. basically sees Samuel L. Jackson put in charge of a crack team of five cops with attitude and guts. Their main mission, after all the training and baring out of character's respective traits and psychological make-ups, is to ensure an imprisoned drug kingpin doesn't get broken out of jail after said scum-bag offers a huge cash reward to anyone that can break him out of said police custody. Cue crash, bangs, double-crosses and a face from the past coming back into the picture after being telegraphed by an incident that opens the film.
Along with Sam are Colin Farrell, Michelle Rodriguez, LL Cool J, Josh Charles and Brian Van Holt. Oliver Martinez slips into the slimy villain shoes and Jeremy Renner does another one of his unhinged characterisations. Director Clark Johnson never breaks free of his TV roots, because the film often feels like a glorified TV episode, but his action construction is competent and he has decent actors to keep the film from sinking down among the dead men. Competent is the key word here, it's a decent time waster for the action movie fan, but really it feels like the action movie hadn't advanced much from the previous decade. A shame because there was much potential in the story. 6/10

Blundering, but well-meaning mall cop tries to be John McClane (“Die Hard”)
An affable mall officer in New Jersey (Kevin James) takes his job seriously while taking care of his daughter and pursuing a cute kiosk attendant (Jayma Mays). When the mall is taken over by a gang of organized thugs, can Paul Blart rise to the challenge?
Whether or not you’ll like “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” (2009) will depend on if you appreciate Kevin James and his goofy, unprofane brand of humor, as depicted in The King of Queens, “Zookeeper” (2011) and “True Memoirs of an International Assassin” (2016). While it’s not as good as “Zookeeper,” it’s not far off. After the first 25 minutes or so you’ll find yourself engrossed in Paul’s life; you understand him and like him. You feel for the man as he gazes longingly at a receipt with the handwritten name of his romantic interest. And you’ll root for him and laugh when a serious threat engulfs the mall.
Keir O'Donnell plays Paul’s greenhorn partner, Veck. He’s reminiscent of a young Tim Roth. In other news, Mays has the cutest wide-eyed face.
The film runs 1 hour, 31 minutes and was shot entirely in Massachusetts (Burlington, Braintree, Peabody, West Roxbury and Bedford).
GRADE: B

This is quite an enjoyable, if light-weight, Disney adventure clearly designed to capitalise on the Jurassic Park themes that drove all of us dino-mad in the 1990s! Here, a dinosaur egg ends up being hatched amidst a colony of lemurs. "Aladar" is an iguanodon, who settles with his new family until a giant meteorite hits the ocean and they must skedaddle inland before the tsunami hits. What now ensues is a fairly standard series of adventures as they all try to find a new home. The visual effects are great, and the characterisations are also quite fun. The story, though, is really pretty derivative and plays very much second fiddle to the innovative standard of the animation. Pity, as over time that animation becomes less remarkable, and so does the film. Now, some 20-odd years after, the film has little to make it stand out. Still, it's good fun and quite endearing for 80 minutes.

'Dinosaur' is pretty impressive in parts. I felt entertained watching it.
The animation, twenty years on, is still admirable. The environments remain beautiful, the living creatures may not look quite as superb but are still nice in my opinion. The voice cast are understated yet suitable, much like everything else from the music to the plot.
D. B. Sweeney plays the lead role, portraying a character called Aladar. His voice isn't as strong as I'd want but he does a good job nevertheless. Alfre Woodard stands out slightly as Plio, I recognised her voice instantly having seen her years back on TV's 'Desperate Housewives'.
Heftier voices and a more dramatic score would've taken this further in my estimations, though there's no doubting this is a film that has many elements to enjoy.

**Samara takes a back seat to, um, I can't really remember what exactly.**
2017 version of the franchise adds digital files but conveniently forgets about the internet in an unnecessary continuation. Seriously, not one of the students would have tried to go viral by uploading the video to youtube or vimeo. The story takes a huge detour in what seems like it is supposed to be a fresh take on the franchise, but it just ends up treading water until the inevitable outcome. Samara the creeping kubuki dancer dead girl is barely in it, and that is a real shame. 4/10 seems mean so I gave it a 5/10, simply because even though it is a bit boring and not really scary, it is not a terribly made film. Just not very interesting.

An interesting play up of the _Ring_ mythology, but not a great horror on its own merits.
Also! The trailer for _Rings_ makes it appear as if the movie is about one thing. As it turns out, that one thing takes place entirely in the last 90 seconds of the film.
_Final rating:★★ - Definitely not for me, but I sort of get the appeal._

It's not a faithful rendition of the original movie. However, this movie is still entertaining with its further world-building to the cult of witches, which is something I wished for more of in the original.

Inspite of Argento's dissatisfaction, Suspiria (by Guadagnino) is an evocative reinterpretation. Maybe it is the original creator's prerogative to criticize the execution when remaking classic cinema, peronally, I find the criticism also takes itself too seriously.
Reimagination through the milieu (post-war Germany) affords a shift in depth and focus without complicating the narrative with self-referentiality. Although details have been torn apart for lack of relevance, to my mind, if the director chose any setting, naivety or irrelevance would still be the low-hanging fruit of critics. The film simply doesn't strive to show a connection, and contextual elements are illustrated with proportionate gravity and relevance.
If one has to draw comparisons, there are diametric opposites in many ways. Mainly through through cinematography. No doubt Argento's inspired so much that followed and this ultimately binds it to the genre it inspired. Four decades later, we have a histrionic period drama fused with a supernatural fable forming (unwanted) homage to Argento's suspense, as cinema for today's audience.
I loved the original score by Goblin and others they did for Argento and Romero. The selective moods created by Thom Yorke, incidentally harmonic vocals and creepy piano motifs fit. Visual stylistic references to Argento are the use of light, costume and retro decor which jarrs to effect but again, is not out of place.
In terms of conceptual themes, I think it did well. Perhaps it is not something that everyone will he happy with. Then again, it's not trying to please everyone nor explain connections between a timeless demonic coven in post-war Germany. Let it wash over you and you might feel its crestfallen tones and realism.

This movie is an abomination. I truly wish this hadn’t been labelled a remake and had just been something new that was inspired by Suspiria or something. Imagine taking the most beautiful movie in the world and being like why don’t I make this ugly as hell. It’s also ridiculously long. One of my most hated movies.

I have never seen original Suspiria, but saw this remake and all I can say - it had very unique atmosphere. It was different from a mainstream horror movies. It's not for everyone. If you're fan of SAW with lots of gore or even Conjuring series with lots of makeup and effects, you might not like this movie. Here most important part plays music, dance, places & characters involved in witchcraft that together creates creepy atmosphere. Movie is quite long and if you watch it at night and especially alone, it will give you effect of a nightmare dream. It's one of those weird movies that only few people understand and love.

**_Politically juvenile, with a troubling approach to the Feminine, but it's certainly convinced of its own profundity_**
> _It did not excite me, it betrayed the spirit of the original film: there is no fear, there is no music. The film has not satisfied me so much._
- Dario Argento's assessment of _Suspiria_; _Un Giorno da Pecora_ (January 18, 2019)
Released in 1977, Dario Argento's giallo classic _Suspiria_ (the first part of his _Tre madri_ [_Three Mothers_] trilogy) has a plot you could fit on a stamp – a young American dancer goes to the famous Tanz Dance Academy in Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, only to find it's a front for a witches coven. That's it, and as the film barely leaves the confines of the Academy, there is no contextualising of the plot against any kind of socio-political background. By no means is it a good film, with terrible acting, a dire script, and laughable effects, but it's immensely enjoyable, partly because it's genuinely creepy in places, but mainly because it doesn't take itself too seriously; the filmmakers know it's nothing more than a surreal, gaudy, style-over-substance, shock-for-shock's sake, Grand Guignol head-trip, and they lean into that identity rather than trying to transcend it. Luca Guadagnino's remake (yes folks, it's a remake) is the polar opposite – it has an intricate plot covering all manner of themes and topics, featuring several new characters, and setting everything against a complex socio-political background; the acting and effects are excellent; it takes itself very, very seriously; and it continually tries to prove to the viewer that it is much more than a piece of kitsch horror. According to Guadagnino, his version of _Suspiria_ is a "_homage_" to the "_powerful emotions_" of the original (it's a remake), whilst actress Tilda Swinton calls it "_a cover version_" (it's a remake). The real question, however, is not how similar or dissimilar it is to Argento. The real question is whether the film is a beautifully mounted insightful exploration of female sexuality, a celebration of a self-contained matriarchy set against the destructive chaos of a failing patriarchy, and a psychoanalytical investigation of national trauma and World War II guilt, or is it an overlong, dull, self-important, incoherent mess, that in trying to be both feminist and feminine somehow ends up being both misogynist and misandrist? Working kind of like a hybrid of Nicholas Winding Refn's _The Neon Demon_ (2016) and Darren Aronofsky's _mother!_ (2017), the film is as far as you can get from Guadagnino's more recent work, specifically _A Bigger Splash_ (2015), and _Call Me By Your Name_ (2017); one can only imagine what people who expected more of the warm sun and delicate eroticism seen in those films must have felt after spending 152 minutes in an arid Berlin winter, witnessing bones pushing through skin, decapitations, night terrors, meat hooks being used in ways meat hooks were not intended to be used, Holocaust survivors, political terrorism, and witches trying to organise an election.
Set in "Divided Berlin" in October 1977, the film is divided into six acts ("1977", "Palaces of Tears", "Borrowing", "Taking", "In the Mütterhaus (All the Floors are Darkness)", and "Suspiriorum") and an epilogue ("A Sliced-Up Pear"). It begins with Patricia Hingle (Chloë Grace Moretz, who appears to be cornering the market in rubbish Hollywood remakes), a student at the prestigious Helena Markos Tanzgruppe [Helena Markos Dance Academy] arriving at the home of her psychoanalyst, the Carl Jung-in-all-but-name Dr. Josef Klemperer (Tilda Swinton, credited as Lutz Ebersdorf). Terrified and not making much sense, Hingle tells Klemperer she has discovered something sinister about the Academy and is now in fear for her life. Although Klemperer believes she is delusional, he is concerned for her well-being, but she flees, leaving behind her diary. Meanwhile, Susie Bannion (Dakota Johnson), a Mennonite from Ohio, arrives at the Academy hoping to audition. Impressed with her abilities, lead choreographer Madame Blanc (also Tilda Swinton, channelling Pina Bausch), admits her to the Academy. Becoming close with her roommate, Sara Simms (an excellent Mia Goth), Susie quickly finds herself dancing the lead in the Academy's upcoming piece, _Volk_. Meanwhile, in Hingle's diary, Klemperer reads that the academy is a front for a witches' coven, and learns of the "Three Mothers", a triumvirate of powerful witches who predate Christianity – Suspiriorum (Sighs), Tenebrarum (Darkness), and Lachrymarum (Tears). At the same time, he is trying to find out what happened to his wife, Anke (Jessica Harper, who played Susie in the original), who disappeared in 1944 after he tried to convince her it was safe to remain in Berlin. Meanwhile, the Academy's matrons hold an election to choose the coven's leader, with Blanc running against Helena Markos (also Tilda Swinton!), a vote which Markos narrowly wins. Unaware of any of this, as Susie becomes increasingly close to Blanc, Sara grows suspicious of the matrons and begins to investigate on Klemperer's behalf.
Guadagnino has been obsessed with Argento's original since he first saw it in 1984, and in 2007, he optioned the rights and hired David Gordon Green to write and direct a remake (there's that word again), something with which Argento himself was not especially pleased, believing the film didn't need to be remade. In 2013, Green revealed that legal issues had prevented the film from being made, and in 2014, he also cited the escalating budget. However, in 2015, Guadagnino announced that he himself was now directing a "_homage_" (it's a remake), from a script by David Kajganich (_The Invasion_; _True Story_) which focused on "_the uncompromising force of motherhood._" Guadagnino's _Suspiria_ is the kind of horror movie that goes for slow-burning psychological dread (there is literally not a single jump-scare), and from the time the project was announced, it has divided opinion, something which continued when it was released; it's that rarest of films whose Metacritic scores range from 0 (for example, Mike LaSalle's review for the _San Francisco Chronicle_) to 100 (for example, Joshua Rothkopf's review for _Time Out_).
As the plot outline should make clear, the film deals with a variety of weighty themes, one of which is the political turmoil of the era. Set in October 1977, the events of the _Deutscher Herbst_ [German Autumn] are constantly on the fringes of the narrative – the film opens with a street demo; radio reports speak of Ulrike Meinhof's death in police custody in May 1976, the imprisonment of Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin, the activities of the far-left, anti-imperialistic terrorist group _Rote Armee Fraktion_ [Red Army Faction - RAF], the hijacking of _Lufthansa Flight 181_ by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the kidnapping of Hanns Martin Schleyer; the story the academy put out to explain Hingle's departure is that she has joined the RAF; a bomb explodes off-camera.
And it is in relation to politics where we encounter the first, and most certainly not the last, of the film's problems. Arguing that Germany's failure to process their Nazi past and confront their national shame is manifesting as political disenfranchisement, Guadagnino employs a pseudo-Jungian approach to show that the country's political turmoil runs parallel to the struggle for control of the coven. Emphasising that the world of witches was once harmonious under the rule of the Three Mothers, just like Germany, it has now devolved into factionalism, complete with backroom political manoeuvring, subterfuge within the ranks, and animosity bordering on aggression. Within this dynamic, the matrons are the privileged ruling elite, and the students are the uneducated and disenfranchised "_volk_".
But to what end does Guadagnino make this parallel? What is he trying to say? Rarely have I encountered a narrative which employs such blatant yet inconclusive and vague political contextualisation. Take the Berlin Wall as an example, which is literally right outside the Academy's door. Why is it there? Why are there so many shots of it? What purpose does it serve in the narrative? The answer is, none. It's purely ornamental, with Guadagnino seemingly hoping for meaning by association – people see the Wall, and immediately begin to attribute to it all manner of allegorical significance, when in fact the film itself suggests nothing of the kind. And none of the other political symbols amount to much more; they certainly don't inform any grand thematic statement or political thesis. Guadagnino bombards the viewer with empty historical and political themes which do nothing for the central storyline, functioning instead as decoration, utterly trivialising and completely disconnected.
Also important in relation to the film's politics is _Vergangenheitsbewältigung_ ["Overcoming the past"] – essentially, post-1945 Germany's attempt to come to terms with World War II and the Holocaust. This is primarily seen in Klemperer's search for his wife, which throws up another problem. Klemperer, who is not in Argento's original, is a surrogate for the audience. Nothing wrong with that, it's a standard screenwriting technique used to facilitate more organic exposition. However, Klemperer is an extremely distracting and painfully on-the-nose device to afford Guadagnino a vehicle for a political subplot, which is completely superfluous to what is happening in the coven. Every single reference to Anke could be removed from the film, leaving Klemperer as simply an amateur detective trying to find out what happened to Hingle, and the film would work just as well. In fact, it would work better. As his search for his wife becomes more prominent, and he becomes more central, all that is achieved is the waning of the central plot. In a story ostensibly about the Feminine, it's rather troubling that the emotional core of the film is male. The film's preferred point of view is his, with even the epilogue focusing on him. Klemperer is quite literally a man in a woman's world, but exactly why Guadagnino felt the need to shoehorn a man into a story about women is anybody's guess.
Which brings us to another theme; femininity (if not necessarily feminism). That the film is deeply interested in this is shown in a number of ways. For example, Susie is told by head matron Tanner (Angela Winkler) that the academy ensures the "_financial autonomy of our girls_"; speaking of Nazi Germany, Blanc says the regime wanted women to "_close their minds and keep their uteruses open_"; Susie is reminded that "_before the war, Germany had the strongest women_". Additionally, Klemperer is played by Swinton, meaning the film effectively has an all-female cast (the only other men with any lines are Glockner and Albrecht (played by Mikael Olsson and Fred Kelemen, respectively), two completely useless policemen whose main scene involves the witches hypnotising them and mocking the size of their genitalia). However, the film isn't interested in idealising female empowerment. Instead, it depicts a matriarchy beset by disruption and the chaos of a struggle for power. As Guadagnino tells Jezebel,
> _if we talk about the Great Mother, we cannot deny the terrible mother. True feminism is something that doesn't shy away from the complexity of the female identity._
But does the film imply that a powerful group of women is something to be inherently feared? Partly. Indeed, the very theme of witchcraft itself (perhaps the purest historical manifestation of the patriarchy's fear of female agency) carries an undercurrent of misogyny, which is not helped by the nudity and repeated violent objectification of the female body. There's a very thin line between condemning the male gaze, which is what Guadagnino claims to be doing, and recreating it, and it's a line which _Suspiria_ frequently crosses (for an excellent example of a film which recreates the male gaze for the purpose of satirising and ridiculing it, see Coralie Fargeat's superb _Revenge_). Maybe the problem here is simply that a story inherently about matriarchy, female empowerment, and the importance of motherhood, is a story a man can't tell very well. I'm reminded of Sofia Coppola's remake of _The Beguiled_ (2017), of which she argued,
> _this story had to be directed by a woman. The essence of it is feminine, it's seen from a female point of view._
_Suspiria_ also has a feminine essence, but it doesn't have a female point of view, and one can't help but wonder what a talented female director like Coppola, Mary Harron, Patty Jenkins, or the genius that is Lynne Ramsay would have made of this material.
However, even aside from these problems, there are a plethora of other issues. The character of Blanc, for example, is poorly written, and is stripped of agency towards the end of the film, so by the time of the _dénouement_, she anti-climatically does little in the direction of either outright evil or redemptive good; instead, she just kind of hangs around. As for the matrons, apart from Tanner, none receive an iota of characterisation; they are simply a jumble of non-individualised background extras. The same is true of the dancers. Indeed, there's an absolute dearth of subjectivity or interiority for anyone beyond Susie, Blanc, Klemperer, and, to a lesser extent, Sara and Tanner. There's a cliché-riddled scene showing Blanc telepathically channelling nightmares to Susie, full of images of skulls, worms, rotting flesh, etc. Nothing we haven't seen a hundred times before. Finally, the film is immensely silly in places. For example, the much-talked-about climax is presided over by what can only be described as a female Jabba the Hut wearing sunglasses. Another example is after Susie first dances at the academy, she confides to Blanc, "_it felt like what I think it must feel like to fuck._" "_Do you mean fuck a man?_" asks Blanc. "_No_," replies Susie, "_I was thinking of an animal._" Of course you were.
From an aesthetic point of view, however, there's a great deal to admire, as one would expect from Guadagnino, who is working with much of the same crew as from his last couple of films. Walter Fasano's editing is wonderfully disjointed, often cutting maniacally between inserts, barely affording the viewer time to register the images. The compositions and camera placement of cinematographer Sayombhu Mukdeeprom (_Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives_) are also fascinating, often putting the camera in such a position as to purposely give a less than perfect view of a particular space. Combined, these two techniques are disorientating and frequently defamiliarising, rendering mundane geographical spaces such as offices, dorm rooms, and rehearsal studios as foreboding and unknowable, almost protean, never allowing the viewer to forget that something is not quite right in this _milieu_. Contributing to this sense is the blocking, particularly the recurring motif of staging conversations so that one character is off-screen, only visible to the audience via reflection. Especially noticeable is the film's colour, or lack thereof. Whereas Argento's original was awash in garish and exaggerated reds, purples, blues, greens, and yellows, Guadagnino's remake was conceived as "_winterish_", with as limited a use of primary colours as possible; grey, beige, and brown predominate. Giulia Piersanti's costumes are also superb, with Susie's wardrobe noticeably changing from conservative dresses and sweatpants to more revealing tank tops and shorts as she gains in confidence. Thom Yorke's Krautrock-style score is also excellent, as different from Goblin's prog-rock music from the original as you could possibly imagine.
The cumulative tension and dread are also reasonably well managed in the first half of the film, and there are individual scenes of great brilliance. At one point, Sara goes snooping around the Academy, finding something genuinely shocking, the reveal of which is masterfully staged by Guadagnino and Mukdeeprom. Easily the best scene in the film is the one that so traumatised audiences at CinemaCon 2018. As Susie performs an especially energetic dance for Blanc in one room, unbeknownst to her, she is psychically linked to a dancer in another, and every movement of her body is manifested violently in the other room, with the other dancer being flung about like a rag doll. The scene is horrifically gruesome, with bones piercing through flesh, blood and urine flowing copiously, and limbs contorting into truly disturbing positions. What really sells the scene, however, is the combination of Fasano's brilliant intercutting (maintaining continuity of movement from room to room cannot have been easy), Damien Jalet's superb choreography, and the disturbing sound design by Frank Kruse and Markus Stemler (_Cloud Atlas_; _In the Heart of the Sea_; _Assassin's Creed_) contrasting the sharp snapping of breaking bones with the wetter sounds of those bones penetrating flesh.
Self-indulgent like little else I can think of, _Suspiria_ is absolutely convinced of its own profundity. Far, far too long and far too self-serious, its themes and messages are poorly iterated, it's insanely dull for long periods, and it's badly unfocused. It's almost an hour longer than the original, and, honestly, it uses that hour to say precisely nothing of interest. The simple fact is that the slight story at the film's core (a coven of witches using a dance academy as a front) is unable to bear the massive weight of themes and narrative diversions heaped upon it; the vehicle just can't carry the message. Its politics are no more insightful than tabloid headlines, and serve only to detract from what is supposed to be the narrative's focus. Ultimately, it has little to say about femininity, feminism, political protest, the Holocaust, Cold War Germany, or World War II guilt, but it damn sure works hard to convince us it has a great deal to say about such topics. As cold as the Berlin winter it depicts, _Suspiria_ is equal parts emotionless, mechanical, and dull.

Luca's "Suspiria" brought me no words.
The horror in this movie is not like anything else I've ever heard or seen. The sheer film in Luca's "Suspiria" is not like anything that is made by major movie studios such as Columbia, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Disney, and the like. Director Luca Guadagnino transitioning from the LGBTQ+ drama adaptation "Call Me By Your Name" — transitioning to the avant-garde, psychological study in his version of famed director Dario Argento's 1977 "Suspiria".
Horror movies today don't scare me. Horror movies of the 21st century seem to be involved in so much gratuitous gore, typical plotlines, a roulette set of actors playing quasi-characterization, varying degress of quality. Luca's "Suspiria" — a horror movie from 2018 — did not scare me. Luca's "Suspiria" unnerved me. Luca's "Suspiria" built slowly in tension, but also captivated me with raw interest — "Suspiria" dealt its final blow, finishing with a nightmarish sixth act and an epilogue.
Argento's "Suspiria" is a movie out of time in its own way. Argento's "Suspiria", a film released in 1977, looks fresh and modern — Argento's "Suspiria"'s fixation on primary neon colors and gore — Argento's "Suspiria" with prog-rock, percussion score by the band Goblin. Director Dario Argento, however, does not like Luca's "Suspiria". Director Dario Argento claims it is without spirit, fear and music — Argento thinks the design is beautiful, so Guadagnino must have done something right.
Luca's "Suspiria" is a movie unlike anything out of sheer audacity to become its own. Luca's "Suspiria" in the way it handles narrative into six different, self-contained "acts" ending with an epilogue — Luca's "Suspiria" in its washed-out, bleak setting complementing queer, disenfranchised coloring and nonconforming visual narrative — Luca's "Suspiria" with its brooding realism, mysterious witchcraft and black magic — Luca's "Suspiria" with mesmerizing visuals; unexplained syntax; self-contained exposure; restraint. Horror in Luca's "Suspiria" is much more than simple disgusting imagery — Gore in Luca's "Suspiria" is far and in between, but is visceral and disgusting all the same — Nudity in Luca's "Suspiria" is all female, except one male.
Politics and dance in Luca's "Suspiria" are vital to understanding 2018 "Suspiria". Dance carries witchcraft and spells, and with it — uncompromising emotion, femininity, power, and rawness. The German Autumn of 1977, in which Luca's "Suspiria" is set in a time where Berlin is divided into East and West (and when Argento's "Suspiria" was released). The Lufthansa hijacking and the RAF faction. The mention of the Third Reich by Dr. Klemperer as a religion, and a delusion. What is and is not a delusion.
There's something dramatic about Luca's "Suspiria" itself. Dr. Lutz Klemperer in losing his beloved wife, Anke, in the Holocaust. Sara in losing her beloved friend, Patricia. Madame Blanc in beginning to love her newfound daughter, only to regret what she has done to her. The three girls in the ritual wishing for death, to be given a motherly kiss and then die. Klemperer's meek inability to stop what he has witnessed through psychotherapy; his helpless stature in the finale. His erased memory to absolve him of his guilt, and of what he had to witness.
Dakota Johnson; the one actress from the terrible, mainstream "Fifty Shades" film trilogy. Dakota Johnson becomes remarkably unnerving, feminine, sexual, motherly, and incomprehensible. Tilda Swinton — her counterpart, Lutz Ebersdorf. Tilda Swinton's role as a matriarch and founding mother of a coven; Lutz Ebersdorf's role as a skeptical psychotherapist; a grieving widow. Chloe Grace Moretz as a politically-troubled woman; unstable woman; paranoid woman. Everyone's performance as their roles felt utterly average — Everyone's average performance as their roles grounded reality to the movie.
Thom Yorke in the music department did a nice job. Thom Yorke's score for Luca's "Suspiria" evoked the mood of a 70s prog-rock band with a niche for ambient synthscapes, musique concrete moods and piano experimentation; if we're judging Thom Yorke's soundtrack, its a nice collection of songs that should have been a Radiohead double album than a soundtrack. Of course, Thom Yorke's score did not always fit Luca's "Suspiria"; Some scenes with Thom Yorke's pieces grated the scenes' moods to pieces, yet in a similar manner as Goblin's score for Argento's "Suspiria".
* A movie that left me deeply unsettled, and scared in my subconscious. A movie that made me depressed when it was depressed. A multi-faceted piece, Luca's "Suspiria" is a rooted testament in femininity and matriarchy. Luca's "Suspiria" is a movie without words.